Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by JuneBy Sean Trende - March 9, 2012

The Republican primary has revealed distinct geographic tendencies. Mitt Romney is dominant in New England and in the West. Newt Gingrich has run well in the Deep South, while Rick Santorum has done well in caucus states, the Great Plains, and the peripheral South (it remains to be seen whether his support has bled into Gingrich's strength in the Deep South). That leaves the Midwest as a battleground between Romney and Santorum.

While Romney had a good night on Super Tuesday, the truth is that he did nothing to alter the basic regional nature of his support. He won handily in New England and the West, essentially tied in the Midwest, and ran poorly in the South.

Given the structure of the primary season, this portends a long slog to the nomination, and makes it difficult for Romney to wrap up the nomination early on. Consider the schedule, and the following possible outcomes:

March

The rest of this month is absolutely brutal for Romney.

Great Plains: Kansas. Assume Santorum wins here by a margin roughly equal to that in North Dakota, and wins all the state’s districts except for the 3rd (Kansas City).

South: Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana. This could go either way between Gingrich and Santorum. Let’s assume that these states have roughly the results of Tennessee, while acknowledging that they could look like Georgia. Romney will probably still win the Birmingham districts in Alabama and the New Orleans districts in Louisiana, but other than that will likely be shut out.

Midwest: Illinois, Missouri. I think the former is fertile ground for Romney, but let’s assume that it is close, like Michigan and Ohio. We’ll have him split the districts 10/8. It’s hard to see Romney running any better in Missouri’s caucuses than he did in the primary, so let’s give the caucuses to Santorum with the same margins as North Dakota.

West: Hawaii. Give this to Romney, at the same rate as Alaska.

: Northern Marianas, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico. Anyone’s guess. Let’s divide evenly among the candidates. Puerto Rico is winner-take-all, so give that to Romney (who has run well with Latinos so far this cycle).

Note that Romney wins only two contests in actual states under this scenario. That is a serious momentum-sapper. Gingrich may have dropped out by this point, or become a non-factor, but since his votes probably go to Santorum, it's probably not relevant to our Romney-centric analysis here.

Northeast: Maryland, D.C., New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware. Obviously, this is a nice stretch for Romney. There are some question marks here: Who is voting in the Republican primary in Jose Serrano’s 95 percent Obama district in New York? Anyway, we will model New York, D.C., and Maryland after Vermont; Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware more like Massachusetts (understanding that we’re probably being too generous to Romney with the latter and not generous enough with the former).

South: Texas, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas. We’ll model the last three like Tennessee, though Santorum could run even better in these three than he did in the Volunteer State. The other two are anybody’s guess. Since I’d been so generous to Romney in the Northeast, I went ahead and modeled these like Tennessee. But given the strong Republican Party establishment, as well as the surfeit of wealthy suburban districts in both states, Romney really could over-perform. We’ll hedge somewhat by giving Romney 50 percent of the congressional districts in Texas, which assumes that he runs well in the suburban districts as well as the Latino districts, but that the relatively low turnout in the latter districts costs him the statewide win.

Midwest: Indiana. Modeled like Ohio/Michigan.

Great Plains: Nebraska. Modeled like North Dakota.

West: Oregon. Modeled like Washington state, though it isn’t as urbanized, and Romney could have a tougher time here.

Note that we’re almost done with primary season, and Romney only has three-fourths of the delegates he needs.

June

There are only six contests left at this point: California, New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico and Utah. New Jersey and Utah are obviously Romney-friendly, while South Dakota and Montana are Santorum-friendly. California is probably Romney-friendly, as is, probably, New Mexico, but California divvies up almost all of its delegates by congressional district.

I’ve said this before, but who is voting in a Republican primary in Maxine Waters’ district? I honestly have no clue whom they would favor -- and there are a lot of districts like this in California. The whites who vote in the Central Valley districts are culturally similar to Southern whites, and the mountain districts are awfully conservative as well. We’ll give Romney 42 districts, but this is probably giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

So what’s the bottom line here? Romney ends up with 1,071 delegates, still short of the nomination. Now, there are a few important caveats. First, there are 114 unpledged RNC delegates, who can vote for anyone. Second, there are another 86 delegates in states that have already voted that have yet to be allocated. Romney will probably get somewhere between a third and half of these delegates.

So a brokered convention is still a long shot, but (1) note how long it takes Romney to get into range; and (2) recall that we’ve perhaps been too generous with Romney in our delegate allocations in New York, Texas and California, especially after the brutal March he is likely about to have.

Does it look like the Reps are heading towards a brokered convention???

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 9th, 2012, 2:58 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by June

I hope so. Romney is the candidate the Barak Obama wants to face, and the media has proven it. He's a garbage candidate that the general public isn't very passionate about. He is Barak Obama light, and everything that he "has" on Obama, Obama has on him. It would be an ideological war of degrees (what degree to the left are you?)...

Newt is the ONLY candidate that can beat Obama. I've said it before and I stand by it. He was talking about the price of gas just last night, and everything the guy says makes sense. Newt has clear distinctions between himself and Obama, and Newt has the more intelligible message and more promising future vision for our country.

I want to see a brokered convention with Newt prevailing (or someone that hasn't ran yet, but I really don't think that will happen, i.e. Christie, or Jeb Bush)... I don't think anyone other than the candidates that are currently running will have the infrastructure to get it done in November.

March 9th, 2012, 3:22 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9898Location: Dallas

Re: Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by June

WJB, you are focused on issues - few voters due despite what they say. Newt ain't got a chance, he isn't "presidential" enough. As I've been saying for a year, no Republican has a chance this year against Obama - it is a throw away vote and why I advocate taking your votes in a total different direction.

With the economy continuing to turn (added 227,000 in Feb to complete the 3 strongest months of growth since the Great Depression) and the Economy being the #1 issue - BO is a shoe in. I don't know why anybody would even want to run against him this year.

WJB, you are focused on issues - few voters due despite what they say. Newt ain't got a chance, he isn't "presidential" enough. As I've been saying for a year, no Republican has a chance this year against Obama - it is a throw away vote and why I advocate taking your votes in a total different direction.

With the economy continuing to turn (added 227,000 in Feb to complete the 3 strongest months of growth since the Great Depression) and the Economy being the #1 issue - BO is a shoe in. I don't know why anybody would even want to run against him this year.

I know it isn't what some want to hear but time to face reality.

He's not a shoe-in, and it HAS to be about issues.

1) If Obama stays in Office Obamacare is a done deal. It may be modified by the Supreme Court, but it WILL be law, and it will cripple our economy for years to come, and MOST people will hate it, just as they hate socialized medicine in other countries. Care WILL be rationed, but rather than ration it by who can afford it, we'll all be waiting in lines for life and death procedures. I know, I know... "we're not going to ration care..." BUT JACKASS YOU HAVE TO RATION CARE!!! There aren't enough doctors to perform the procedures for EVERYONE, thus it WILL be rationed!

2) If Obama stays in Office the economy will continue to struggle. Sure, there has been a recent surge, but we're not even close to the all time high of the Dow, and we're on pins and needles right now. Personally, I think the Dow is currently over-valued, and will burst soon, possibly this fall.

3) If Obama stays in Office business start-ups and the manufacturing industry will continue to falter. Obama has done little to equalize trade relations with China, and he's shown that he isn't willing to put much effort into trying.

4) If Obama stays in Office he will continue to bankrupt the country and he will crash the dollar. I really believe it. I honestly believe that his final four years in office will be our doom. I think he will crash the economy, I think our debt ceiling will grow to an unmanageable amount, and I think we will have to either welch on our debt, asked to be bailed out, or severely devalue our currency by printing a poop of money to cover our tab.

5) If Obama stays in office, count on $5 a gallon gas for the next four years, and count on that becoming the norm after it takes hold (which is exactly what he wants, and he's said so!).

March 9th, 2012, 3:49 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9898Location: Dallas

Re: Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by June

WJB, I'm not backing Obama I'm just telling you he is a shoe-in and if you don't think so you are fooling yourself. The recent surge was all he needed, I don't think it will be particularly close.

Remember, you are smarter, much smarter, than the average voter out there. They can't grasp simple political issues.

WJB, I'm not backing Obama I'm just telling you he is a shoe-in and if you don't think so you are fooling yourself. The recent surge was all he needed, I don't think it will be particularly close.

Remember, you are smarter, much smarter, than the average voter out there. They can't grasp simple political issues.

I agree. I have little doubt in the reelection of President Obama. I am much more interested in what happens in the congressional races at this point.

_________________2011 Adopted Lion: Rob Sims/Looking for a side job at I.H.O.P because he can't stop making pancakes.

March 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by June

Pablo wrote:

WJB, I'm not backing Obama I'm just telling you he is a shoe-in and if you don't think so you are fooling yourself. The recent surge was all he needed, I don't think it will be particularly close.

Remember, you are smarter, much smarter, than the average voter out there. They can't grasp simple political issues.

Oh, trust me... I understand that Obama has a huge advantage. Against someone like Romney or Santorum I think it's a land-slide, so bad that the Republican Party looks bad. However, IMO Newt is smart enough and has enough on Obama to make him look really, REALLY bad, and to make Obama's policies look horrible. I think Newt is the only one that has any semblance of chance, is all I'm saying, but I do realize that it will be an uphill battle.

I don't know if you remember, but I'm the one that predicted over a year ago that Obama will win again, and I've been saying it ever since. Even when times were horrible I knew exactly this would happen (sudden surge in the economy, all is forgotten, small bickering over minutia and ideology, stick with our current President). In response I received "NO WAY!!!'s" all over the place. I knew then and I know now that it's not likely that he'll lose, but Newt is the ONLY candidate that has the potential to make him lose.

I said that at the outset of the primary and again I was met with "NO WAY"s all over the place. Now it's more true than ever, and it's more evident than ever that Santorum and Romney simply can't beat Obama.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the Republican pool of candidates is so watered down with "has-beens." I think people like Christie and Jeb Bush knew that this was going to happen, the unfortunate thing is that right now, at this juncture we're at the tipping point with the national debt and its sustainability, and if Obama gets re-elected I see horrible things for us and our economy.

March 9th, 2012, 4:37 pm

njroar

QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3220

Re: Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by June

Obama is anything but a shoe-in, and to say that anyone that doesn't believe it is fooling themselves is well... foolish.

January's numbers were lower due to storms in the south east, so if you average the two months, you get the same figures as last year. Judging the jobs numbers during holiday hiring season, where there's always jobs regardless of the economy, is fools gold. It might look like a boost to Obama now, but once those numbers jump back up (which if you follow the polling, its been trending up for last 3 months) when you get to real jobs, not the temporary jobs being listed, that surge will disappear. Partner that with rising gas prices and things can and will shift fast.

Anyone "giving up" on an election in March doesn't know a thing about politics. The real race doesn't begin until 60 days out. Regardless of who the nominee is, everyone will then rally behind them. But we already knew that. You always have the party standing behind their guy. The difference is the independents and the young vote. And that's where I think you're misreading a small increase in the economy as the winning solution.

Independents aren't buying into the "war on women" argument, especially as more and more comes out on Sandra Fluke and he having ties back to the White House. The independents also realize that simple math wins out. We're shedding 375k jobs a month, and adding 277k jobs (temp jobs at that) still comes out negative. The only reason the unemployment number dropped to 8.3 is they counted less people. 1.2 million people were dropped from the list which is the largest drop in 30 years. We've lost 8.5 million jobs in the economy and have only gained 1 million back.

The young vote, which won Obama the election in 08, has shifted away from him. They can't get hired and now have more debt due to his policies. As a current student, I've seen the opinions of younger students completely change direction due to their situation. In an on-demand society, you don't get a full 8 years to win them over.

No one knows that the economy is going to look like in November. A lot can happen in the 8 months leading up to election day. If you pay attention to the media or the vocal minority, I can see where you would view it as already over, but at this time in 2008, many of the same people were saying McCain was a shoe-in. The race hasn't even gone to the head-to-head stage. The majority still isn't even paying attention yet, and when they do, a lot of what is happening now in the primaries won't be brought up or remembered. The only people fooling themselves are those that think its already over.

March 9th, 2012, 5:12 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by June

njroar wrote:

Obama is anything but a shoe-in, and to say that anyone that doesn't believe it is fooling themselves is well... foolish.

January's numbers were lower due to storms in the south east, so if you average the two months, you get the same figures as last year. Judging the jobs numbers during holiday hiring season, where there's always jobs regardless of the economy, is fools gold. It might look like a boost to Obama now, but once those numbers jump back up (which if you follow the polling, its been trending up for last 3 months) when you get to real jobs, not the temporary jobs being listed, that surge will disappear. Partner that with rising gas prices and things can and will shift fast.

Anyone "giving up" on an election in March doesn't know a thing about politics. The real race doesn't begin until 60 days out. Regardless of who the nominee is, everyone will then rally behind them. But we already knew that. You always have the party standing behind their guy. The difference is the independents and the young vote. And that's where I think you're misreading a small increase in the economy as the winning solution.

Independents aren't buying into the "war on women" argument, especially as more and more comes out on Sandra Fluke and he having ties back to the White House. The independents also realize that simple math wins out. We're shedding 375k jobs a month, and adding 277k jobs (temp jobs at that) still comes out negative. The only reason the unemployment number dropped to 8.3 is they counted less people. 1.2 million people were dropped from the list which is the largest drop in 30 years. We've lost 8.5 million jobs in the economy and have only gained 1 million back.

The young vote, which won Obama the election in 08, has shifted away from him. They can't get hired and now have more debt due to his policies. As a current student, I've seen the opinions of younger students completely change direction due to their situation. In an on-demand society, you don't get a full 8 years to win them over.

No one knows that the economy is going to look like in November. A lot can happen in the 8 months leading up to election day. If you pay attention to the media or the vocal minority, I can see where you would view it as already over, but at this time in 2008, many of the same people were saying McCain was a shoe-in. The race hasn't even gone to the head-to-head stage. The majority still isn't even paying attention yet, and when they do, a lot of what is happening now in the primaries won't be brought up or remembered. The only people fooling themselves are those that think its already over.

NJ - I'm with you, but with an inevitable 3rd party candidate in Ron Paul (I know he will steal votes from both sides, but lets be honest, he's going to steal more Republican votes), and the media backing Obama, coupled with Obama's war chest and his ability to blame the "do nothing Congress" (as they always do when they don't control the Congress), I think Obama is ALMOST a shoe-in to be re-elected.

That statement "if unemployment isn't blow 8% in four years then I'm going to be a one-term President" (or whatever it was) is going to be blaring everywhere, and I believe that whomever the eventual candidate the Right will rally around that guy like its no one's business... Still, its going to be a tough road to hoe...

But I will say... I expect gas to be around or over $5 per gallon his summer, and I expect that to hurt the economy, BADLY, and, as I said, I think the current Dow average (largest benchmark) is all fools gold right about now. The 4th Q is generally a rally every year... Once the high gas prices shoot up after the Fed. regulated additives are added into the mix, and once that starts effecting stocks like UPS, FedEx, food prices, and general goods everywhere, and once that starts looking like "inflation" (they're not going to be able to hide it) I think things will get very, very dicey. People will start to get laid off, as they always do when delivery and gas prices start hurting the economy, unemployment numbers will eek up, the outlook will change slightly, and we're going to see what this house of cards is made out of... Perhaps it was built with glue, but I doubt it...

And I hate to say it, but as dirty as the Left is with using the media as a tool, I wouldn't be surprised if the uber wealthy on the right do something sneaky like pull all of their money out of the market at the same time to cause a slight panic or small crash. It's in their power, and I know that the business minded want Obama out in a BAD BAD way.

March 9th, 2012, 5:41 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Re: Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by June

Quote:

Newt is the ONLY candidate that can beat Obama. I've said it before and I stand by it. He was talking about the price of gas just last night, and everything the guy says makes sense. Newt has clear distinctions between himself and Obama, and Newt has the more intelligible message and more promising future vision for our country.

Gingrich promising to make gas $2.50 and build a base on the moon makes him a nut in my book.

March 9th, 2012, 8:48 pm

Stallion

Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 12:45 pmPosts: 1834

Re: Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by June

njroar wrote:

Independents aren't buying into the "war on women" argument, especially as more and more comes out on Sandra Fluke and he having ties back to the White House.

The young vote, which won Obama the election in 08, has shifted away from him. They can't get hired and now have more debt due to his policies. As a current student, I've seen the opinions of younger students completely change direction due to their situation. In an on-demand society, you don't get a full 8 years to win them over.

I disagree with you on the "independents aren't buying into the 'war on women' argument". I have seen an impact with independence I know and I have seen some polling data to suggest otherwise. As far as Sandra Fluke is concerned, I do not believe that matters much to independents at all. This can be combined with the fact that the primary is forcing Romney A) to appear more conservative and B) Use negative adds and dropping his favorably to horrendous levels. I see the independent vote going to President Obama.

I also disagree with you on the young vote. I am a graduating senior form the University of Michigan and college age voters heavily favor Obama and then support Ron Paul (I do not believe Ron Paul will run third party however. I think he does not want to be able to be blamed for Obama's reelection and damage his son's future chance at a white house run.)

I just heard a report that only 14% of Hispanic voters favor Romney (a vote the Bush and McCain had over 40%), African-Americans will likely vote for Obama 7/8 as usual, the winning argument of a do-nothing congress, and I really feel there is an enthusiasm gap that will also favor Obama.

While nothing is certain, I believe that Obama will win a close but predictable race.

_________________2011 Adopted Lion: Rob Sims/Looking for a side job at I.H.O.P because he can't stop making pancakes.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that Mitt "Flip Flop" Romney will win the nomination and will ultimately lose to Obama. This is what Axelrod and Company has planned for, and the Romney attack ads are basically already written. Even though some people have dismissed it as conspiracy theory, the Occupy Wall Street movement was no accident. Members of the Obama campaign were involved with it's planning as far back as last April. It's no coincidence that Obama began the anti-Wall Street, rich paying their fair share, and 1% rhetoric in late July, when OWS, beginning with the Day of Rage, was scheduled to kick off on September 17th. It's also no coincidence that Obama's former Green Czar and avowed Communist, Van Jones, is coordinating Phase 2 of OWS which will begin later this spring. They're attempting to incite populist rage against Wall Street and the 1%, of which Romney is a member of both. Even though I hate David Axelrod's guts, I have to admire the campaign strategy he's going to use this year and how he forced Obama's opponents out of the race back in Illinois in the past.

And the media is complicit in this, as well. They have labeled Romney as the only Republican who can defeat Obama and most idiots have fallen for it. For those with amnesia, they said the same thing about John McCain in 2008, but they turned their lukewarm support of him off the second he received the nomination. The lamestream media was in the tank for Obama in 2008 and the same thing will happen again this year with Romney and I'll just laugh. Romney is the one that Obama wants to face and whomever believes otherwise is a fool.

Romney's ties to Wall Street and being a member of the 1% is just the beginning of his problems though. His flip flops are legion and I don't think there's a single issue that he hasn't changed positions on atleast once. He is a political opportunist who will say or do whatever it takes to get elected. His campaign speeches in Massachussetts for both Senate and Governor will be contrasted with those from the GOP primary to demonstrate this. To make matters worse, is there a least exciting or passionate guy on the planet? He inspires no one, especially the conservative GOP Base, many of whom will simply refuse to vote for him.

With all that said, there is one thing that could turn the election to Romney's favor - Citizen's United. Karl Rove and American Crossroads are going to spend upwards of $300M on negative Obama ads. The Koch Brothers funding Americans For Prosperity are also rumored to be spending close to $200M on the same thing. Add in many more big GOP donors and Obama won't have the money advantage that he thinks he will. The plan for most of these ads is to educate the public about the corruption within the Obama Regime that the lamestream media has refused to cover. For many Americans, it will be the first time that they have ever heard about Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Light Squared, Fisker, Van Jones, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, etc. Will it be enough? Time will tell.

_________________

March 10th, 2012, 8:42 pm

Stallion

Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 12:45 pmPosts: 1834

Re: Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by June

I think the money will be close. Last I heard Obama's campaign had $225 Million and will also have help from Pac money. I do believe the Republicans could have the edge though.

_________________2011 Adopted Lion: Rob Sims/Looking for a side job at I.H.O.P because he can't stop making pancakes.

Stallion, I agree that the money will be close, but it was never expected to be that way. I think it was Messina who bragged that the Obama campaign would have $1 billion to spend, but they are falling far short of that goal. What's funny is that Obama has gone on nearly twice as many fundraisers as Bush did at this point in 2004, but has less money on hand than he did at this point. This is not good for Obama. Furthermore, Obama outraised McCain considerably on Wall Street in 2008, but that money has dried up due to Hussein's demonization of them. Most of that money is now going to Romney. To make matters worse, the unions are a primary cash cow for Democrats, but the unions are now spending most of their money fighting anti-union bills in Ohio and recalling Republicans in Wisconsin. As a result, they don't have as much money available as they did in the past.

In the end, Obama should have a considerable edge over Romney in general election funds, but Crossroads and AFP should close the difference. In addition, I wouldn't be surprised to see Donald Trump come out with "You're Fired" ads against Obama. Will Soros and Buffett do likewise? We'll see. I can't speak for everyone, but I refuse to donate to the Republican Party. I send my money to places like AFP and politicians with whom I agree with like SarahPAC and Jim DeMint, who will get the money into the right hands. I encourage others to do likewise. Don't donate to the political parties. Donate to the politicians and political action groups that fight for the same things you believe in. In case you didn't notice, I don't donate to Crossroads since it's the RINO establishment money laundering scheme, but I will cheer every attack ad that they put out against Obummer anyway.

I should also add that Obama has told other Democrats not to expect any money from him or the DNC because he needs every penny he can get. The Democrats in the Senate and House are on their own because it's all about him. This will make it easier for the GOP to keep or gain seats in both houses since the Dems are being hung out to dry in order to save Obama. I am not surprised by this, nor should you be.

_________________

March 11th, 2012, 12:46 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by June

It's going to be tough backing Romney as the nominee, but I will. It's still better than Obama.

That said, this election is the perfect storm for the Democrats (impassioned 3rd party Candidate stealing votes from the Republican nominee, a candidate that sparks little passion from his backers, and the Religious Right doesn't back Romney, and won't show up to vote), at possibly the most critical junction in American politics.

Like I said, anyone that can't see that the media has orchestrated the Romney ordeal and shot Newt in nuts is blind. They're afraid of Newt, BIG TIME, but unfortunately it looks like he won't win the nomination.